In the News

In an election year where more congressional incumbents were ousted from power than any time since 1948, political action committees were quick to switch allegiances from one party to the other in the aftermath of the historic Democratic losses.

Imagine that every member of Congress represents the industry or special interests that have contributed the most to his or her campaign coffers. Which industries and special interests, then, lost or won seats in Congress during the 2010 midterm election?

As enthusiasm among conservatives surges, embattled Democrats may be placing their faith in the old Washington maxim that money delivers success on Election Day. That’s because heading into the final weeks of the campaign season, Democrats — not Republicans — maintained a financial edge in the most competitive House races across the country, a Center for Responsive Politics analysis indicates.

Rep. John Boehner (R-Oh.) has reportedly been working behind the scenes with male Republicans, urging them to avoid appearances of impropriety by cutting down on after-hours partying — and particularly any partying that involves female lobbyists. And it seems to be working: According to The Hill, female lobbyists are complaining that Boehner’s warning has cut off their access to many male Republicans in the House.

This spring and summer, hundreds of millions of gallons of oil seeped into the Gulf of Mexico. Simultaneously, debate raged in Congress about ocean drilling, energy independence, cap and trade legislation and a shift away from fossil-fuel energy sources. Nevertheless, congressional candidates and federal political committees nationwide have raked in more than $17 million from the oil and gas industry so far during the 2010 election cycle — a number on pace to easily exceed that of the most recent midterm election four years ago.

Incumbency is a monumental obstacle to overcome for any political challenger. But 11 congressional challengers — nine Republicans and two Democrats — have managed to raise more money than their incumbent rivals, a Center for Responsive Politics analysis found.

Just 10 lawmakers held assets in the one-time insurance industry titan AIG, or its subsidiaries, at the end of 2008. And according to a Center for Responsive Politics review of those lawmakers’ newly released personal financial reports, that number has further eroded.

Federal candidates and officeholders were required to file their first-quarter campaign finance reports with the Federal Election Commission by midnight last night. As scores of races across the country heat up for competitive contests, here is a snapshot of campaign finance findings regarding a handful of hot races, based on a Center for Responsive Politics review of reports filed with the FEC.

As the U.S. Senate weighs contentious changes to federal abortion policy, the Center for Responsive Politics has also found that pro-choice interests have given sitting senators roughly six times as much as pro-life interests have contributed to them. CRP has further found that senators who voted in favor of tabling an anti-abortion amendment offered by Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) received an average of nearly $60,000 from abortion rights supporters and an average of just $80 from anti-abortion interests over the past 20 years.

Insurance giant AIG’s political clout is waning as fast as its finances. Since its near-collapse and government bailout last fall, AIG disbanded its lobbying team. It hasn’t donated a dollar from its political action committee this year. Furthermore, contributions from individual AIG employees since January are merely a sliver of what they’ve been in previous cycles — although a few notable politicians retain financial or political ties to the embattled company. Among these lawmakers is Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, who pledged to return contributions from AIG employees who got post-bailout bonuses but has nonetheless retained tens of thousands of dollars from them given before the bailout.

Feel free to distribute or cite this material, but please credit the
Center for Responsive Politics. For permission to reprint for commercial uses,
such as textbooks, contact the Center: info[at]crp.org

Except for the Revolving Door section, content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License by OpenSecrets.org. To request permission for commercial use, please contact us.